Ponderbox

[Aguaman]

Oh I'm aware he had a lot of mechanical issues and stuff. It's just you would have expected him to win a race in 2001. But yeah there wasn't anybody that they could hire. Maybe I'm giving him a lot of flak but in those Ferraris I guess he should have won more.

However I loved seeing DC stuck behind Bernoldi at Monaco. One of the best moments of 2001.

[Londoner]

However I loved seeing DC stuck behind Bernoldi at Monaco. One of the best moments of 2001.

Shame our (then) Australian overlords didn't see it that way. Bernoldi got awarded ROTR for it. Fourteen years later and I'm still bitter about it.

[FullMetalJack]

So having seen the 2000 and 2001 F1 review I have one question to ask. Why did Ferrari get Barrichello again? Other than the obvious good rear gunner. But I mean in 2001, he didn't win a race while DC, Hakkinen, JPM and Ralf won races.

Who else would they have hired? Everyone else available didn't want to be a number 2 to Schumi, or would've been a worse number 2.

Pretty much. Plus, by the end of 1999, he had earnt his place at a top team.

[Rob Dylan]

However I loved seeing DC stuck behind Bernoldi at Monaco. One of the best moments of 2001.

Shame our (then) Australian overlords didn't see it that way. Bernoldi got awarded ROTR for it. Fourteen years later and I'm still bitter about it.

Why on EARTH did Bernoldi get a ROTR at Monaco 2001? Surely he was the star of the show, no?

[Klon]

Why on EARTH did Bernoldi get a ROTR at Monaco 2001? Surely he was the star of the show, no?

Their argument basically boiled down to that there can be too much of a good thing.

[WeirdKerr]

Alright, who turned this forum into a soap opera of sorts?!

Has it ever been any different? Some of the best days on here are often when the discussion of F1 is practically incidental.

Yeah... Back when derailing a thread was still a thing. I blame WeirdKerr on this!

Wait! What have I done!!!????

[DanielPT]

Wait! What have I done!!!????

Nothing! I just plugged in a joke based on your calling out thread derailments.

[lgaquino]

Was reading the wiki pages of the Tyrrell cars. Noticed something odd:
In 91 Postlethwaite designed the first high nose car, and the team used evolutions of that car until halfway through 93, when Coughlan designed a low nose one.
Postlethwaite was back in the team for 94 but, despite the benefits of the design he pioneered, both the new car for that season and the one for 95 where had a low nose designs.
Does anyone know why?

[AndreaModa]

Was reading the wiki pages of the Tyrrell cars. Noticed something odd:
In 91 Postlethwaite designed the first high nose car, and the team used evolutions of that car until halfway through 93, when Coughlan designed a low nose one.
Postlethwaite was back in the team for 94 but, despite the benefits of the design he pioneered, both the new car for that season and the one for 95 where had a low nose designs.
Does anyone know why?

No, but I've thought the exact same thing before as well. I suppose in a way it highlights the disjointed thinking within the team during that period - a lack of faith in an existing concept and no long term development plan.

[MorbidelliObese]

Ferrari did the same, going with a raised nose 1992 to 1994, before going back to a low nose for that gorgeous 1995 car.

Although (and I only realised this a few years later as I got older), even the "low nose" cars of that time were slightly raised and not a complete flat bottom to the nose tip, I think Newey pioneered this with the March and brought the idea to Williams, McLaren following suit with their 1992 car.

The Tyrrell-style raised nose did have I guess the drawback of reduced front wing space to produce downforce with the missing middle section, although the Benetton-style nose that would become standard got around this, although both Footwork and Minardi tried a less extreme Tyrrell-style arrangement in 1992.

My best guess is that people saw Tyrrell and/or Benetton's ideas, saw they went well and thought they might copy them, but with the level of understanding of aero being less than today, sometimes it wouldn't work so they went back to what they knew. Plus the fact Williams were setting the pace with their "low nose" car, even though Williams advantages in that period really lay elsewhere and were well documented, probably contributed to the hesitation to commit,

For Tyrrell themselves, maybe the Williams factor played a role, given that they had already proved the concept and weren't "copying" anything. The fact their 1994 car was actually quite competitive as well.

By 1996 the field had had a few years of development, experimentation, trial and error, whatever, and they all committed to the Benetton-style raised nose.

[CoopsII]

My ponder is age-related. Hamilton is well on his way to securing his third title and thus joining the legendary greats. But, much like with Vettel, I aint feeling it on a visceral level despite me appreciating the numerical achievements. As a disclaimer I am a Ham-Fan, when he's in the car I find his performances stunning. When he's out of the car and a Twittering, however, I often feel like pushing him down a flight of stairs. Equally, I was never a Vettel-hater. I'm as sorry as anybody Webber never won a title but c'est la vie.

So why do I not feel any particular reverence for these two trophy-hoarding champions? I'm wondering if it's because I'm older than them and they're both durn pesky kids to me, does anybody else feel similar? Are you younger than them and find yourself looking up to them?

Looking back at the greats like Schumacher, Prost or that Brazillian bloke, I forget his name, they seemed larger than life and their racing exploits were and are moments of history. I wonder if that's because they were, you know, grown ups doing grown up stuff? Or maybe it needs the passage of time for the reputations of these two to properly cement themselves into mythology?

I dunno.

[dr-baker]

My ponder is age-related. ...
So why do I not feel any particular reverence for these two trophy-hoarding champions? I'm wondering if it's because I'm older than them and they're both durn pesky kids to me, does anybody else feel similar? Are you younger than them and find yourself looking up to them?

I dunno.

You seem to be on to something there I think. I feel like I respect Button and Alonso a bit more (being similar in age to them). Maybe it's easier to see those older than you have success because they have had the time and experience to get there. Maybe it's OK to see those of a similar age get ahead a bit, because you think to yourself, "I could be there if I was given the same opportunities, and was able to take advantage of them." But when people you perceive as 'youngsters' have more success than you, you start wondering, "What if?"

[sw3ishida]

Being the relative infant that I am at the young age of 20, I think I can very much say that I have a lot of respect for someone like Daniil Kvyat, who is mere months older than I am, and that also carries over to the likes of Max Verstappen.

That said, I also have a lot of respect for the likes of Schumacher, Button, Vettel and Alonso, who are some way older than me, but for some reason I don't feel the same for Hamilton. Maybe in hindsight I will and in fact the reason I don't is because he's winning right now, rather than it being age related. At least for me.

[MorbidelliObese]

My ponder is age-related. Hamilton is well on his way to securing his third title and thus joining the legendary greats. But, much like with Vettel, I aint feeling it on a visceral level despite me appreciating the numerical achievements. As a disclaimer I am a Ham-Fan, when he's in the car I find his performances stunning. When he's out of the car and a Twittering, however, I often feel like pushing him down a flight of stairs. Equally, I was never a Vettel-hater. I'm as sorry as anybody Webber never won a title but c'est la vie.

So why do I not feel any particular reverence for these two trophy-hoarding champions? I'm wondering if it's because I'm older than them and they're both durn pesky kids to me, does anybody else feel similar? Are you younger than them and find yourself looking up to them?

Looking back at the greats like Schumacher, Prost or that Brazillian bloke, I forget his name, they seemed larger than life and their racing exploits were and are moments of history. I wonder if that's because they were, you know, grown ups doing grown up stuff? Or maybe it needs the passage of time for the reputations of these two to properly cement themselves into mythology?

I dunno.

I'm in the same boat myself. I idolised Mansell (older than my dad), cheered for Hill (old enough to be my dad), kind of wanted Button (3 years older than me) to do well, after that, kind of meh really.

It works the other way too, the likes of Senna and Schumacher I held up as the arch-enemy, rooted against them at every opportunity (which of course implied a large amount of respect for their abilities), now I find myself feeling very apathetic to almost the whole field.

In fact when it comes to deciding who I'd prefer to do well or not, I find myself having to employ cold hard logic, which isn't really what being a fan (as in fanatic) is all about really. e.g. I admire Vettel and find him relatable in terms of his apparent appreciation of the sports history, absence from social media etc. while Hamilton is at the other end of the scale in that regard, but I'm a long way from considering myself a fan of Vettel or considering Hamilton some sort of super-villain.

[Spectoremg]

My ponder is age-related. Hamilton is well on his way to securing his third title and thus joining the legendary greats. But, much like with Vettel, I aint feeling it on a visceral level despite me appreciating the numerical achievements. As a disclaimer I am a Ham-Fan, when he's in the car I find his performances stunning. When he's out of the car and a Twittering, however, I often feel like pushing him down a flight of stairs. Equally, I was never a Vettel-hater. I'm as sorry as anybody Webber never won a title but c'est la vie.

So why do I not feel any particular reverence for these two trophy-hoarding champions? I'm wondering if it's because I'm older than them and they're both durn pesky kids to me, does anybody else feel similar? Are you younger than them and find yourself looking up to them?

Looking back at the greats like Schumacher, Prost or that Brazillian bloke, I forget his name, they seemed larger than life and their racing exploits were and are moments of history. I wonder if that's because they were, you know, grown ups doing grown up stuff? Or maybe it needs the passage of time for the reputations of these two to properly cement themselves into mythology?

I dunno.

I'm in the same boat myself. I idolised Mansell (older than my dad), cheered for Hill (old enough to be my dad), kind of wanted Button (3 years older than me) to do well, after that, kind of meh really.

It works the other way too, the likes of Senna and Schumacher I held up as the arch-enemy, rooted against them at every opportunity (which of course implied a large amount of respect for their abilities), now I find myself feeling very apathetic to almost the whole field.

In fact when it comes to deciding who I'd prefer to do well or not, I find myself having to employ cold hard logic, which isn't really what being a fan (as in fanatic) is all about really. e.g. I admire Vettel and find him relatable in terms of his apparent appreciation of the sports history, absence from social media etc. while Hamilton is at the other end of the scale in that regard, but I'm a long way from considering myself a fan of Vettel or considering Hamilton some sort of super-villain.

I had and still have a lot of time for Mansell too; a racer who came up via the school of hard knocks but was genuinely good enough to be employed by some of the greats (Lotus, Williams, Ferrari and Williams again) on merit. He wasn't exactly Mr Charisma when he opened his mouth but at least he mostly talked sense.
Vettel turned into an instant ar$ehole when he went to Red Bull.
With Hamilton it's all about personality for me; he just about reflects all the poor qualities you'd expect from a blinged-up Essex boy racer.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Just give it fifteen years and this age and these drivers will be as magical as everyone who came before them.

[CoopsII]

Vettel turned into an instant ar$ehole when he went to Red Bull

But the season before when he raced for the other Red Bull team he was OK?

[mario]

Vettel turned into an instant ar$ehole when he went to Red Bull

But the season before when he raced for the other Red Bull team he was OK?

Well, it could be said that was before the adverse effect of Marko really kicked in (Webber has certainly indicated in his memoirs that Vettel was a more approachable individual before the senior management started to negatively influence him).

My ponder is age-related. Hamilton is well on his way to securing his third title and thus joining the legendary greats. But, much like with Vettel, I aint feeling it on a visceral level despite me appreciating the numerical achievements. As a disclaimer I am a Ham-Fan, when he's in the car I find his performances stunning. When he's out of the car and a Twittering, however, I often feel like pushing him down a flight of stairs. Equally, I was never a Vettel-hater. I'm as sorry as anybody Webber never won a title but c'est la vie.

So why do I not feel any particular reverence for these two trophy-hoarding champions? I'm wondering if it's because I'm older than them and they're both durn pesky kids to me, does anybody else feel similar? Are you younger than them and find yourself looking up to them?

Looking back at the greats like Schumacher, Prost or that Brazillian bloke, I forget his name, they seemed larger than life and their racing exploits were and are moments of history. I wonder if that's because they were, you know, grown ups doing grown up stuff? Or maybe it needs the passage of time for the reputations of these two to properly cement themselves into mythology?

I dunno.

I guess that part of it is the fact that the figures of the past grew up in an era where you were really only exposed to their activities on the track - in a sense, all you really saw were those moments on track that lionised them.

With the advent of things such as Twitter, we are now in a situation where individuals are shining a light on what they get up to outside of the track to a far greater extent. Figures like Senna, Prost or Schumacher were much more private individuals, which I think lead to a certain extent to a sense of mystique - they were defined in effect by those moments on track, since they were the only light we had into their psyche.

By comparison, with the drivers tending to be much more open and public, we see not only the more extravagant moments but also the mundane realities of testing, fitness training and the day to day activities that make the sport tick. For both better and worse, it has effectively made the drivers more human in that respect - in some ways, humanising the drivers has made it harder to elevate them above the rest when they come across as not being especially different from the rest of us, removing some of the "god like" aura that drivers could generate in the past due to the slight sense of the unknown.

[pi314159]

Just give it fifteen years and this age and these drivers will be as magical as everyone who came before them.

I don't think so. I don't think they will ever be legendary. Vettel or Alonso definitely deserve to be named among the greatest F1 drivers, but it doesn't feel like it in a way. Pre-1980s Formula 1 was sheer madness. 1980s to 2000s Formula 1 was a sport. And today's Formula 1 feels like an artificial entertainment show. With the little problem that it isn't even as entertaining as other types of Motorsport (in my opinion).

[Klon]

Pre-1980s Formula 1 was sheer madness. 1980s to 2000s Formula 1 was a sport. And today's Formula 1 feels like an artificial entertainment show. With the little problem that it isn't even as entertaining as other types of Motorsport (in my opinion).

Congratulations, pi314159, you have done it. The "Most Pretentious Post on a Sports Forum Award" in 2015 is now sure to belong to you.

[kevinbotz]

Pre-1980s Formula 1 was sheer madness. 1980s to 2000s Formula 1 was a sport. And today's Formula 1 feels like an artificial entertainment show. With the little problem that it isn't even as entertaining as other types of Motorsport (in my opinion).

Given that, aside from two excellent races in Britain and Hungary, this season has been fairly soporific, I can somewhat sympathize with your sentiment regarding present-day Formula One; but it's both more than a little disingenuous and very much precedented to generalize the totality of Formula One's previous eras as superlative golden ages.

There were no shortage of complaints when turbocharging technology first emerged, then displaced the beloved Cosworth DFV; similarly, there was much gnashing of teeth when blue-chip sponsors and electronic gizmos indelibly left their mark upon Grand Prix racing in the 1990s. We also must not forget the proliferation of doom-sayers and apocalyptic prophets during the nadir of Schumacher's domination in the early-2000s; "Formula One has been reduced to nothing more than a technological arms race," they said, "Formula One has lost its soul."

Interestingly, most of these complaints were justified by a reference to the eras gone by, to a "simpler" time, a "purer" sport, a sporting discipline unsullied by the deleterious effects of dehumanizing technology and effluent cash flows; the very identical arguments and validations that are being levied against the sport in the present-day.

I'm not arguing that Formula One is without its demerits, nor that it is anywhere near approaching its potential at the moment. It's also important, however, to acknowledge that Grand Prix racing has always had its critics, has always delivered at times as well as underwhelmed at times, in both equal and disproportional measures, and that very likely, twenty, thirty years from today, we'll be applauding our current era as one of "simplicity", "purity" and "the last hurrah of the internal combustion engine", speaking of Alonso and Vettel in hushed, reverent tones, and bemoaning the state of Formula One in 2045, with its newfangled magneto-drives, thrust-vectoring turbines, neutered drivers and an increasingly out-of-touch, avaricious Bernie Ecclestone regaled with the latest and greatest in biocybernetic technology.

[CoopsII]

Pre-1980s Formula 1 was sheer madness. 1980s to 2000s Formula 1 was a sport. And today's Formula 1 feels like an artificial entertainment show. With the little problem that it isn't even as entertaining as other types of Motorsport (in my opinion).

Congratulations, pi314159, you have done it. The "Most Pretentious Post on a Sports Forum Award" in 2015 is now sure to belong to you.

Can somebody else explain to me what's so pretentious about what pi314159 posted? I mean, granted, I'm not mentally ill like Klot so I don't see things the same way she does but even so.

[pi314159]

Pre-1980s Formula 1 was sheer madness. 1980s to 2000s Formula 1 was a sport. And today's Formula 1 feels like an artificial entertainment show. With the little problem that it isn't even as entertaining as other types of Motorsport (in my opinion).

Congratulations, pi314159, you have done it. The "Most Pretentious Post on a Sports Forum Award" in 2015 is now sure to belong to you.

Clearly, Klon, you don't read Autosport forums.

I don't want to glorify the past, even if it may have come across that way. I could never have become a fan of pre-1980s Formula 1, with all the dangers present in those days. But I can't deny that this was an environment that is more likely to produce "legends". Could you imagine a movie like "Rush" being made about Alonso and Vettel's battle for the title in 2012?

I also have not forgotten the boredom of 2004 either, which was almost as bad as this year, and even if I am highly critical of some developments in modern Formula 1, it didn't stop me from enjoying the 2012 season, or even some of the races last year.

But the problem with modern Formula 1 is, if there's no close racing, there's no reason to watch at all. The races have become more and more predictable, with the increasing reliability, the perfectionism in pit stops, and the amount of sensors in current cars.

Also, Formula 1 cars aren't as spectacular to watch as they were 10 years ago. Which is because a) the cars have become slower, and b) the extended tarmac runoff of many tracks. It was always spectacular to watch a car exit Parabolica, with just a few centimeters between the left wheels and the gravel. Now, half of the drivers just go off the track there.

Another factor might be the camera angles in F1 broadcasts. They don't manage to get this feeling of high speed across. Instead, they seem to focus on giving the sponsor decals on the walls and runoff areas maximum exposure.

And then there's still the irony that after all the changes to improve the show, Formula 1 has just managed to create the most boring season in the past 15 years.

[Salamander]

Could you imagine a movie like "Rush" being made about Alonso and Vettel's battle for the title in 2012?

Yeah. I could. It was the best title fight in F1 history.

[CoopsII]

Could you imagine a movie like "Rush" being made about Alonso and Vettel's battle for the title in 2012?

Yeah. I could. It was the best title fight in F1 history.

Me too. The expression on Alonso's face gives me goosebumps each time I see it; disbelief, despair, denial and defeat. What a competitor he was that year. I must admit, despite my earlier post, probably because of 2012 I do see Alonso as one of the greats. The sheer determination in dragging that not-great Ferrari into contention should and will be remembered for a long time.

[Fetzie]

Could you imagine a movie like "Rush" being made about Alonso and Vettel's battle for the title in 2012?

Yeah. I could. It was the best title fight in F1 history.

Me too. The expression on Alonso's face gives me goosebumps each time I see it; disbelief, despair, denial and defeat. What a competitor he was that year. I must admit, despite my earlier post, probably because of 2012 I do see Alonso as one of the greats. The sheer determination in dragging that not-great Ferrari into contention should and will be remembered for a long time.

Alonso has been able to drag every car he has driven to the top of the classification. I mean, he even got that tug boat of a McLaren into the top 5 in Hungary. He has consistently out-driven the car's capabilities when in a sub-par car.

[FullMetalJack]

Me too. The expression on Alonso's face gives me goosebumps each time I see it; disbelief, despair, denial and defeat. What a competitor he was that year. I must admit, despite my earlier post, probably because of 2012 I do see Alonso as one of the greats. The sheer determination in dragging that not-great Ferrari into contention should and will be remembered for a long time.

Alonso has been able to drag every car he has driven to the top of the classification. I mean, he even got that tug boat of a McLaren into the top 5 in Hungary. He has consistently out-driven the car's capabilities when in a sub-par car.

The fact that he dragged that dog of a Renault in 2009 into the points on a regular basis speaks volumes about his abilities, along with a pole position, another front row start and a podium. Without him, Renault would have been in Toro Rosso/Force India territory, and may well have finished dead last behind both of them.

His 2012 season was probably the best season i've ever seen during my time as a Formula 1 fan, Alonso was unbelieveable, easily up there with Schumacher in 2004 and Vettel in 2013.

Fernando Alonso is without question one of the greats.

[LovelyFondmetal]

In my opinion, we have had 4 of the best title fights of all time in the last 10 years: 2006, 2008, 2010 & 2012. In what I assume to be a strange coincidence, I think the wrong man won the title of all of these occasions, but this did not make me enjoy the battles any less.

2006 was seen as a "battle of the generations" between Schumacher and Alonso, and I was sure Schumi was going to win the title after one of his best drives ever in China, and then his engine exploded in Japan and that was effectively it, Brazil was still interesting but it was a little bit of a let down in the end that it didn't go down to the wire. A classy way for Schumacher to bow out.

Deserving Champion: M. Schumacher
Actual Champion: F. Alonso

I am of the opinion that 2008 was the best year of all time. It was the first year without traction control since 2000 and there was real intrigue throughout. Massa becoming champion for about 80 seconds only to have it snatched away at the last moment was the most gripping and heartbreaking I have ever seen on the television. I remember Massa on the podium crying his eyes out, and the feeling of loss and dejection was unbearable, spookier even than poor Nando in 2012. I have never really forgiven Hamilton for that



Deserving Champion: F. Massa
Actual Champion: L. Hamilton

2010 and we went into the season finale with 4 drivers in contention for the title, including Alonso again which was unthinkable before Germany. The race in Abu Dhabi turned out to be frustrating for everyone except Vettel, with Alonso and Webber shooting themselves in the foot with a weird strategy and getting stuck behind Petrov for damn near the whole race. I was glad Alonso didn't win on this occasion as Germany left a bad taste in my mouth, but Webber, returning from injury and having always been an F1 "nearly man" had led for most of the season, only to be pipped by his team mate at the final hurdle left me feeling disillusioned.

Deserving Champion: M. Webber
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

No one could sum up 2012 better than the above picture of Alonso and this description from CoopsII:

Could you imagine a movie like "Rush" being made about Alonso and Vettel's battle for the title in 2012?

Yeah. I could. It was the best title fight in F1 history.

Me too. The expression on Alonso's face gives me goosebumps each time I see it; disbelief, despair, denial and defeat. What a competitor he was that year. I must admit, despite my earlier post, probably because of 2012 I do see Alonso as one of the greats. The sheer determination in dragging that not-great Ferrari into contention should and will be remembered for a long time.

2012 was truly a year for the ages, 7 different race winners from the first 7 races, an arguably 6 way title fight between drivers from 4 different teams, and the man who deserved to win and led for most of the year had a decidedly iffy car most of the time. If Vettel had not one the championship, people would routinely compare Alonso to Prost in 1986.

Deserving Champion: F. Alonso
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

[Spectoremg]

2010 and we went into the season finale with 4 drivers in contention for the title, including Alonso again which was unthinkable before Germany. The race in Abu Dhabi turned out to be frustrating for everyone except Vettel, with Alonso and Webber shooting themselves in the foot with a weird strategy and getting stuck behind Petrov for damn near the whole race. I was glad Alonso didn't win on this occasion as Germany left a bad taste in my mouth, but Webber, returning from injury and having always been an F1 "nearly man" had led for most of the season, only to be pipped by his team mate at the final hurdle left me feeling disillusioned.

Deserving Champion: M. Webber
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

THIS is why DRS is a good thing.

[Meatwad]

Deserving Champion: M. Webber
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

I can't agree on this one. Webber had the fastest car on the grid (along with Vettel) as well as the best reliability (with Alonso) but failed to finish even second in the championship. He had some great races such as Monaco and Turkey but also several lackluster or downright awful performances (Bahrain, Australia, Valencia, Korea and Abu Dhabi). Korea was the race where he threw away the championship, as he would probably have won after Vettel's engine failure (even third place in that race would have been enough for him).

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Deserving Champion: M. Webber
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

I can't agree on this one. Webber had the fastest car on the grid (along with Vettel) as well as the best reliability (with Alonso) but failed to finish even second in the championship. He had some great races such as Monaco and Turkey but also several lackluster or downright awful performances (Australia, Malaysia, Valencia, Korea and Brazil). Korea was the race where he threw away the championship, as he would probably have won after Vettel's engine failure (even third place in that race would have been enough for him).

I can't really agree with any of these, as they suggest that the driver who won the championship in reality didn't deserve it, which I think is just wrong. The Drivers' Championship is about the best driver-car combination, not just the best driver on his own or for any "nearly men" who you might feel is due a title (this isn't the Academy Awards), it's simply the driver with the most points at the end of the year. Now, yes, in each of these cases none of the drivers I wanted to win the title actually won it (2007 was the last time the driver I supported in the title battle won the championship ), but that's life.

[Meatwad]

Deserving Champion: M. Webber
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

I can't agree on this one. Webber had the fastest car on the grid (along with Vettel) as well as the best reliability (with Alonso) but failed to finish even second in the championship. He had some great races such as Monaco and Turkey but also several lackluster or downright awful performances (Australia, Malaysia, Valencia, Korea and Brazil). Korea was the race where he threw away the championship, as he would probably have won after Vettel's engine failure (even third place in that race would have been enough for him).

I can't really agree with any of these, as they suggest that the driver who won the championship in reality didn't deserve it, which I think is just wrong. The Drivers' Championship is about the best driver-car combination, not just the best driver on his own or for any "nearly men" who you might feel is due a title (this isn't the Academy Awards), it's simply the driver with the most points at the end of the year. Now, yes, in each of these cases none of the drivers I wanted to win the title actually won it (2007 was the last time the driver I supported in the title battle won the championship ), but that's life.

Now this I can agree on! By the way, you managed to quote my post before I edited it. I rejectfully mentioned Malaysia instead of Bahrain and Brazil instead of Abu Dhabi. I should really have checked which race was which instead of thinking Australia was the first and Brazil the last (as I remembered the first two races and the last had weak performances from Webber). I would rate Webber's season slightly lower than Vettel, Alonso and Hamilton, and slightly higher than Button. In an ideal universe, Kubica would have won the title that year.

[mario]

Deserving Champion: M. Webber
Actual Champion: S. Vettel

I can't agree on this one. Webber had the fastest car on the grid (along with Vettel) as well as the best reliability (with Alonso) but failed to finish even second in the championship. He had some great races such as Monaco and Turkey but also several lackluster or downright awful performances (Bahrain, Australia, Valencia, Korea and Abu Dhabi). Korea was the race where he threw away the championship, as he would probably have won after Vettel's engine failure (even third place in that race would have been enough for him).

In many ways, it was quite clear from the radio messages that went between Webber and the pit wall that he was rather anxious about the race and did not seem to want to be there (contrast his messages to those of Hamilton, who was rearing to go). Throughout the events that lead to him spinning out, he seemed like a man who just wanted this race to end as quickly as possible, to the point where his crash must have almost seemed like a relief in some senses.

[Aguaman]

I think Webber would have won if Turkey went to plan. Even if Seb passed him, he would have got 3 more points which would have helped him and team. That's the turning point imo even if he won GB and Hungary.

I love Webber but Alonso winning in 2010 would have been awesome. I think F1 has had great seasons but they aren't old enough to be loved just yet. 2008, 2007, 2009 between Jense and Rubens are alright, 2010 and 2012 were awesome. 2014 wasn't too bad but could have been better near the end.

They are just too recent to be loved I guess.

[Izzyeviel]

You need a bit of luck to be a world champ... I would suggest Webber has used all his up in surviving a lot of big crashes.

[CoopsII]

You need a bit of luck to be a world champ... I would suggest Webber has used all his up in surviving a lot of big crashes.

Personally, I think most of his luck went on all that stuff with Sharapova he did..

[DanielPT]

I have mixed feelings about this Renault leaving the engine supplying side of sport. I mean, yes, they could well be going full factory on Lotus, but even if this is the case, it will be always sad to have less variety on the grid even if it is only engines. I mean, while it is great showing to see both Renault and Honda going completely reject they are still underdogs when it comes to Ferrari and Mercedes in F1 and their showing means that effectively you have only two realistic engine choices if you want to be competitive. This token system while maybe cost reducing, effectively blocks less funded ventures to catch up on those at the top in the early years and while this engine formula development has not expired. This might be the scenario wished by Mercedes and Ferrari where one can deny supplying to rival teams and the other can cutback on customer engines updates therefor maintaining the status quo. While this is bad for the racing, maybe this ends up being good to the sport forcing changes in the right places that end up realigning the sport with a better future.

[mario]

I have mixed feelings about this Renault leaving the engine supplying side of sport. I mean, yes, they could well be going full factory on Lotus, but even if this is the case, it will be always sad to have less variety on the grid even if it is only engines. I mean, while it is great showing to see both Renault and Honda going completely reject they are still underdogs when it comes to Ferrari and Mercedes in F1 and their showing means that effectively you have only two realistic engine choices if you want to be competitive. This token system while maybe cost reducing, effectively blocks less funded ventures to catch up on those at the top in the early years and while this engine formula development has not expired. This might be the scenario wished by Mercedes and Ferrari where one can deny supplying to rival teams and the other can cutback on customer engines updates therefor maintaining the status quo. While this is bad for the racing, maybe this ends up being good to the sport forcing changes in the right places that end up realigning the sport with a better future.

To a certain extent, the decision by Renault also reflects the fact that Red Bull's high profile criticism has hurt their commercial interests in the sport quite deeply. Even if Renault were to turn things around, the damage has been done and Red Bull would be extremely unlikely to thank them for it - so, from their point of view, there is probably little interest in pursuing a venture that is likely to simply lead to more negative headlines irrespective of their performance.

It has to be said, though, that Renault have not managed the whole token system that effectively though. Renault's promised new development engine has been continuously pushed back: they have now said that the updated engine will not be deployed until Austin at the earliest. The potential performance improvement also appears to be quite marginal - Red Bull are considering that it may not be worth taking the penalty for an engine change because the improvement in performance may not be enough to compensate for another grid penalty.

[dr-baker]

Am I right in thinking that Manor are still looking for a permanent base after selling their original place to Haas last winter? I would have loved to have seen them move to where the Thundersley Invacar was built (although that building is probably too small for an F1 team). Not because of the links to a reject road car manufacturer, nor because I would then have an F1 team in my home parish/borough council, but because the industrial estate is already known as the Manor Trading Estate...

Plus, if Manor were to get Honda engines, renaming the engines under the "Thundersley Invacar" badge would maybe be somewhat apt?

[AndreaModa]

Am I right in thinking that Manor are still looking for a permanent base after selling their original place to Haas last winter? I would have loved to have seen them move to where the Thundersley Invacar was built (although that building is probably too small for an F1 team). Not because of the links to a reject road car manufacturer, nor because I would then have an F1 team in my home parish/borough council, but because the industrial estate is already known as the Manor Trading Estate...

Plus, if Manor were to get Honda engines, renaming the engines under the "Thundersley Invacar" badge would maybe be somewhat apt?

http://gprejects.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4027&start=1360#p346636